prisonchaplain

Before we can love others meaningfully and powerfully, we need to be filled to overflowing with God's love. My love is weak, self-serving and manipulative. The fruit of the Spirit--that's the kind of love worth sharing! Likewise with forgiveness. If I'm in deep despair over my own actions, I seek the face of God and ask Him to reveal the power of his forgiveness to me--to let me sense it, taste it, truly know it. BTW, once I've seen God's forgiveness of me, and then embraced it as my own true reality, I will find it much easier to forgive others--with his forgiveness.

Note: I'm going to take a crack at a couple of issues Dr. T brings up, while awaiting others' responses as well. Perhaps another question worth answering is, "Could God have given revelations to both, or are the products of these two different sources incompatible?" If the latter, it may come down to which one was anointed by God? This may be where a discussion about the doctrine of the restoration of the Church and the general apostasy of Christianity arises. This is an important concept. Many of the doctrines we now consider creedal were formed out of a defense against heresies that had arisen.

Okay, first, I'll tip my hat to Prof. Robinson. He does a rather clever turn of the word to make his point. Yes, I even see some humor in it. On the other hand, IF LDS members take his cue, and, when asked, "Do you believe in the Trinity?" simply respond, "Sure, we believe in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost," well...that could certainly lead to misunderstanding. Most Christians, indeed, most westerners (America and Europe) believe that the Trinity means that God is three persons, one God, and that their unity is more than just familial. They truly do make the one God. So, as the professor does, straightforward LDS, who want to employ this method, should always say, "Yes, we believe in the Trinity--but not the way you've been taught." Such an approach would lower my eyebrows. Ultimately he is. But, he begins with, "Sure we believe in the Trinity." Actually, I'm okay with this, because he does explain himself. My one caution would be that whenever you say to a non-LDS Christian, "We believe in the Trinity..." an explanation should be immediate. It just would have been simpler for Robinson to say: We (LDS) disagree with the Trinity doctrine as developed from Nicea onward. We do however, believe in God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. It dawns on me that there is an incredible irony here. Evangelicals often criticize LDS for an overemphasis on works leading to salvation. In reality, LDS basically believe that good works will be the necessary fruit of true salvation--enduring salvation. On the other hand, LDS criticize evangelicals for being so focused on sound doctrine, arguing that there is no biblical requirement for believing certain teachings or creeds. My response is that someone who is truly saved, truly born again, someone in whom the Spirit of God dwells, will gravitate towards true doctrine, and will sense when heresy (false teachings) threatens. So, no perfect doctrine is not a requirement of conversion. On the other hand, yes, the believer is expected to grow in truth, to be able to give an answer for beliefs, and to contend for the truth. Bottom-line: We all want to get the "Who is God?" and "What does He say?" parts right, don't we? By mainstream I mean that the member holds to the core teachings of the church, and askews those doctrines that the Church finds suspect. Also, rather than inquiring about entry into the Temple, I'm more interested in the presumably higher standard of being admitted into the Celestial Kingdom. On the other hand, the point of my referencing the article (originally) was to show that there is a means by which prominent LDS apologists embrace the Trinity. The issues of what constitutes true salvation, as well as what constitutes a salvation that endures are ones that we may wish to persue--hey Heather's paying for the bandwith, right? The whole "injection of Greek philosophy" accusation assumes very political and secular motives on the part of those bishops. Another, obviously more generous, interpretation is that the leaders and great teachers of the church began to encounter heresies, and thus were required to put together explicit faith statements that clearly explicated who God is, and what He's like. That the creeds take on a Greek flavor is not surprising, since that was the culture of the time. I offer this, because my own fellowship ran into the same problem. When the Pentecostal Revival start spreading in 1906 (our 100th year anniversary this year ) none of them wanted creeds. Creeds had been used to drive them out of their churches. Yet, when the Oneness heresy began to spread, the faithful realized that some kind of Statement of Faith was necessary, or the movement would be tossed this way and that by every individual who claimed to have a prophetic word. So, bottom-line: If the bishops were compromising the truth by forcing a politically correct corruption of the gospel, then yes, you are rightly scandalized. On the other hand, if the church did not enter an 1800 year era of apostasy, and if JS' offerings were not from God, well then the non-LDS churches are also rightly scandalized. I'm guessing here we're casting aside such "scandals," and simply doing our best to explain the reasonableness of what we believe, while trying to gain a more authentic understanding of beliefs not our own. Interesting. I've always thought heresy was false teaching--meaning somebody is right, and the other person is wrong. Not all heresy leads to apostosy, but some does. John mentions Docetism (not by name, but by explanation). That is the $64000 question. Snow has asked the same. Not so much about the specific example you offer, but rather the more general, what constitutes a doctrinal error that is so heretical that the adherent would be damned? Most Christian churches don't try to answer that question. Instead they say, "This is what we believe. If you agree, unite with us in Kingdom work." I don't have a clear answer either, other than to say that it is certainly possible that one who knew God, but who ignored the warnings and promptings of the Holy Spirit, embraced heresy. The doctrine of the Trinity is that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct persons, but of one nature. They are the one God. What you describe is monarchial modalism (one in three, versus three in one). Ironically, it is the Oneness Pentecostal heresy: Jesus is the Father, Jesus is the Son, Jesus is the Holy Spirit--he just appears in different modalities or expressions.

Fair game? It's an odd way to describe word usage. Without getting into semantics or word origins, most people understand that the word Trinity is primarily used in theological discussions, and that it is a description of God. I would further argue that the word was formulated, originally, as a description of the creedal explications for God. So, wrapped up in the term are such understandings as the ontological unity of the godhead. IMHO straightforward disagreement and explanation would prove more informative than "fair game" word usage. True, this describes the relationship advanced in the creeds, but Prof. Robinson is committing no strange act by using the word trinity to describe the Godhead of the New Testament (Father, Son, Holy Ghost). He's using it in its literal sense, referring to a quantity of three. If I'm understanding you correctly, Prof. Robinson is interjecting the secular understanding of trinity into a theological discussion, in spite of the fact that there is a far more prevelant theological definition already available. Perhaps he just prefers to agree rather than disagree, but me thinks what he's doing qualifies as "a strange act." (strange meaning unusual, unnatural). All Prof. Robinson is doing is using a hypothetical question to illustrate that we LDS don't believe the Nicene Creed. Didn't you guys catch that? He's not "eager" to prove LDS are Christians by virtue of believing in a trinity. He's simply saying, "If you use definition A, then yeah LDS believe in the trinity. But if you use definition B (the one described in the creeds) then LDS don't. And since most Christians use definition B, then no, LDS don't believe in the trinity and if that makes us un-Christian to the rest of the world, so be it." I guess I get it, and there is a cleverness to his approach. On the other hand, it's also a method of discussion than could lead to misunderstanding. Why? Because your definition A (his first usage) is an unusual forumulation based on a secular understanding of trinity. Definition B (his second, and implicitly lesser definition--he rejects it ultimately) is by far the more common definition, especially in theological conversations. It just would have been simpler for Robinson to say: We (LDS) disagree with the Trinity doctrine as developed from Nicea onward. We do however, believe in God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. PC and Dr. T, I think you guys missed the point of the article. Maybe not. I understand we're just diving in to a discussion of it. But on the whole his point was that if one must believe the creeds to be a true Christian, then Jesus, his apostles and the ante-Nicene fathers weren't Christian--a preposterous assertion I'm sure you'd agree. Let me ask the question back at you, but with a different take: If the Trinity doctrine, as developed through the creeds, and as currently taught throughout most of Christianity, is true--if it is the correct understanding of God, then would it be unreasonable to at least question the faith of those who reject the teaching? One, because the Holy Bible doesn't overtly express a doctrine of henotheism. Two, because we don't believe one must subscribe to a henotheistic view to be qualified as Christian. That's the whole subject of the article under review...to determine if the creeds are appropriate measures of who is and isn't Christian. Let me clarify: Are you saying that it is not necessary to believe that there is one God to be worshipped (Father, Son and Holy Spirit), but that there are many gods, and that we too may become such, in order to be a knowledgeable, mainstream LDS member? Furthermore, that the safest and surest way to prepare oneself for entry into the Celestial Kingdom is through sincere development as a knowledgeable mainstream LDS member? (I'm leaving fudge room, but not much). We do. As our first article of faith points out, "We believe in God the eternal Father, and in His Son Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost." It doesn't say, "We believe in the trinity." No it doesn't. On the other hand, a prominent LDS theologian implies acceptance (with alternative definitions), and, I'm guessing that many LDS members would answer, "Yes, of course we believe in the Trinity. We believe....then they'd recite that first article of faith. I don't understand the fanatic need to cling to a term in asserting one's Christianity. Without getting into whether the issue is truly vital, essential, "make or break" "heaven or hell," surely you can understand the importance of correctly understanding who God is? We are discussion the doctrine of God here. We all we say believe in one true living God, whom we worship. Ought we not have a right understanding of who He is? If someone believes Jesus is the Son of God, died so that sinners might live again with God and does their best to apply Christ's teachings as they understand them...in my mind that person is Christian, LDS or not. Imagine the backlash if LDS went around saying, "Unless you believe our Articles of Faith, you're not Christian." How arrogant. So why use the creeds (extra-biblical) in such a condescending fashion? Here's a suggestion I posted on another string, related to this issue of differing doctrine. A person is saved much as you described, through repentence and faith in Christ. The thief on the cross likely knew little more than that. However, once "saved," the believer should grow in deeds, faith and knowledge. If, however, s/he strays towards heresy--and ignores the Holy Spirit's warnings, wooings, drawings--and ultimately totally embraces the heresy: is that person still "saved." Is s/he still a Christian? Even the LDS has a procedure for declaring that someone has become apostate. Perhaps embracing heresy is a qualifier. It's an open question as to what type or degree of heresy would lead one to apostasy, but these are not unreasonable or fanatic inquiries. If it's so wrong for the LDS church to believe in "new scripture," such as the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants -- if adding to the Bible is heretical and blasphemous... It's only wrong if they are wrong. So, here's the question rephrased: If the Triad is not Scripture--if it is not of God--then is it heresy or blasphemy to embrace and promote it as such? how are the non-Biblical concepts in the creeds so readily accepted as on par with scripture? How does that make sense? By non-Biblical I refer to the distasteful phrases like, "without body, parts or passion," etc... Two thoughts: They are not taken as on a par with Scripture. On the other hand, God has given some to be teachers. If the Church has accurately discerned that those who formulated these creeds were anointed of God, and given to us as teachers, than the fruit of the labor would be good fruit for us. Secondly, the fact that the creeds, while highly regarded, are not on a par with Scripture means it would be far easier for us to discard or revise them, if they did prove unworthy. One last thing to consider. I always enjoy asking this question of classical trinitarians. If the trinity as expressed in the creeds is an accurate portrayal of God's nature, how does this passage make sense? "And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: "And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." (Matthew 3:16-17) I suppose a trinitarian would assert that God descended on Himself and talked about Himself in the third person and was in three places at once. I don't believe in a schizophrenic God. Three persons--distinct persons--one God. Not scizophrenic, just Tri-Une.

This is actually a huge issue: the desire of immigrants to fit in, yet not lose their roots. Add the reality that the parents do not speak English well, and expect their children to look to them for counsel and parental authority. The reality in some immigrant households is that children do lose the mother tongue, and then gradually gain an unconscious disrespect for the parents, who talk baby talk. Another reality is that while many people would respect those who try hard, but speak broken English, as a society, America is not very kind about this. I've seen it in myself. When we realize someone isn't fluent we tense up, become somewhat cold, and many unthinking people become quite cruel: Get out if you can't even speak the language. In contrast, during my 6.5 years in Korea, most Koreans were ecstatic if I could stumble out a few konglish phrases, and were more than willing to assist with translating, when needed. I speak to this because I've seen both sides. Some immigrants overlook the slights, and boldy communicate in broken English. But for many older immigrants, it's so humiliating to talk like a baby, and quite often be rejected, rather than encouraged for trying. America will soon be facing depopulation if we descrease our immigration. LDS families may still be large, but our birthrate is rapidly falling beneath replacement levels. Look to Europe and the wealthier parts of Asia, where they are already facing shrinking populations. The time will come when we'll do like Australia use to, and actually pay people to come and work in our country. We'd best not be burning bridges any time soon.

It's an interesting exercise that is going on here, to be sure. Prof. Robinson is very open about the fact that he is using a different definition than non-LDS Christians when saying that he and LDS believe in the Trinity. What's ironic, is that "Trinity" is a theological word, specially formulated to describe what the creeds teach. So, Dr. T's question is appropriate--why the eagerness to embrace a theological word, even though the beliefs traditional associated with it are unacceptable? One LDS poster described the Church's view as henotheism. Why not just go with that and say, "We believe in the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, but we do not accept the corrupted teachings associated with this doctrinal formulation called Trinity. We believe henotheism better represents what the Scriptures teach." And again, since the word TRINITY is a theological invention meant to succinctly label the doctrine of God, as explicated by creedal developments, why not just reject it?

I had that sense from the practice of Job in making offerings for his children in case they cursed God. It is probably too speculative on my part to say that they were definitely "problem children." Rather than suggesting that the children were killed due to a wager, one possibility is that the angels or messengers in Job 1 were all charged with testing God's creation. It's even possible that some of them came to report from other places in the universe. Satan could well have been charged with testing God's creation on earth. Keep in mind also that Satan, in the NT is called "the accuser of the bretheren." Rather than "betting" God, Satan was prosecuting Job--challenging the true righteousness of the man. So, God allowed Satan to make his case, knowing full well that Job would do well. As for the children, if they were righteous, then they will be rewarded for their part in Job's trial. Since the person Job is mentioned in Ezekiel and James, I'd argue that the Book of Job was considered authoritative, and is a true telling of what happened.

Amen. Fornication has given us a large number of single-parent families, stds, and lots of hidden expenses. Our education system is weighed down with social ills, our tax burdens are higher, our workforce is less able, and, quite frankly, we are losing our leadership status in the world. It's not about the government being in people's bedrooms, it's about people being irresponsible in their bedrooms and then expecting society to pick up the slack. Most ministers work six days, and rest on Mondays. I totally agree with this. We settle for jobs that pay the bills, and are miserable for at least a 3rd of our lives. In addition, the other 2/3rds gets distorted. Far better to work longer hours for less pay, but do something that is fulfilling and meaningful.

First, to give us context: (Job 1:6-7) One day the angels {6 Hebrew <the sons of God>} came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan {6 <Satan> means <accuser.>} also came with them. The LORD said to Satan, "Where have you come from?" Satan answered the LORD, "From roaming through the earth and going back and forth in it." (NIV) I'm not sure what the problem is here? Is it so surprising that God would speak with Satan in the midst of other angels? (Job 1:12) The LORD said to Satan, "Very well, then, everything he has is in your hands, but on the man himself do not lay a finger." Then Satan went out from the presence of the LORD. ... (Job 1:18-19) While he was still speaking, yet another messenger came and said, "Your sons and daughters were feasting and drinking wine at the oldest brother's house, when suddenly a mighty wind swept in from the desert and struck the four corners of the house. It collapsed on them and they are dead, and I am the only one who has escaped to tell you!" (NIV) First, the sons were not so righteous. Second, Ben is right (I did see his response). This life is but a wisp in the light of eternity. Our Creator does indeed have the right to write the scripts of our lives. Ultimately, God will do right by everyone. No one will question his goodness or justice. Job must have understood this much, in that his plea is not for a restoration of what he had, but simply a reassurance that all is well between him and his sovereign.

First, a prayer, "May our Heavenly Father grant special blessings, and a mighty sense of his presence, to allmosthumble, during this time of separation. Also, a double dose of strength and blessing to Apostleknight during his time of caretaking." Now to the nitpicking. If I'm not mistaken, the 120-year figure was an average for awhile, but the age continued to degenerate as the effects of the Fall accummulated. The Psalmist puts it at 70-80--which is about where we are now. Ps 90:10: The days of our years are threescore years and ten; and if by reason of strength they be fourscore years, yet is their strength labour and sorrow; for it is soon cut off, and we fly away. KJV

Okay, here's my outsider's question: Is it official doctrine or teaching of the LDS that women should stay home and bare as many children as possible, and not enter the workforce unless absolutely necessary? I know that this traditional model is back in favor, and that it can be a blessed approach. However, is it THE official best model in the church, or simply one that gets the most nods of approval? Are women who work, even in the professions, somehow looked down upon as being compromising, less spiritual, more materialistic? We're raising three girls, and got started a bit late (I'm 42 now, oldest daughter is 5). We're done with the producing part, and now concentrating on the raising. We both agreed that mom would stay home until at least the youngest reaches fulltime school age. Afterwards, she'll likely go to work--not because she has to, but because she wants to. Yes, it will make life materially more comfortable. But, it's more about her keeping her mind active, and having something to fall back on, should something happen to me. In my church, I know many people would nod approvingly if she chose to stay home, and would applaud me as an able breadwinner and solid traditional dad. On the other hand, I doubt anyone will speak poorly of us if she does end up working. Is there an official LDS view, or is the poster merely stating her take?

Snow presents a rather interesting example of one of those not-so-common disputed passages. Just a couple of quick thoughts on this general phenomenon: 1. The example I'm more familiar with is Mark 16 (the longer ending). In that case, the NIV, and some other modern translations, sets it off, and clearly notes that the longer reading is not found in the earlier more reliable texts. I haven't checked the Luke passage. Lesser controversies sometimes warrant footnotes. 2. This is one of the reasons I favor modern translations over the KJV. Those who favor the literalism of the KJV can find it in the NASB. However, the later translations all have the advantage of many more manuscripts that date much earlier than what was available to the KJV translation team. 3. If I wish to teach a lesson on a topic that a disputed passage relates to, I generally try to find other biblical passage that address the issue. If there are none, I'll not likely emphasize the matter (which is why I don't handle snakes or drink poison as part of my sacramental observance).

Perhaps this is worthy of another thread, but this factor does not bother me as it does most. Why? A good many immigrants come here to better the lives of their children. They are often middle age, and must take up jobs that require 60+ hours per week. They, quite frankly, do not have the luxury of time or money, that would allow them to learn English at the level we want them to (no accent, no obvious grammar errors). What does happen is that their offspring will be fluently bilingual, the 3rd generation will favor English, and the fourth generation probably will not even learn the "mother tongue." Depending on the country of origin, learning English can be tremendously difficult. I know LDS missionaries become roughly proficient in most languages in an incredibly short amount of time, but for immigrants, and even many expats, the first order of business is job and family. Those middle aged and older usually do not master our language. Personally, looking at the big picture, I'm not too worried about it. As long as they vote for my party!

Now that you ask that, it could only be so in the strict sense if the writer of Job had a revelation from God. Otherwise, how would he know about the conversation between God and Satan. That said, yes, I think it was a retelling of what happened to Job. And yet, he vigorously defended himself against the contention of his friends that God was punishing him for some hidden sin. He repeatedly state that he was confident of his faithfulness to God, for which his friends accused him of arrogance. And, indeed, in the end, Job is vindicated, and God has his friends come under Job's authority as he leads them in worship. Point #1 seems to be very much like my point--Job did not seek a restoration of what he had lost--he sought God.

Job is a fascinating book--especially for people of faith in prisons. It's easy to relate to one who has lost much. It dawned on me, just today, that when Job went to prayer, after his many losses, he did not pray for the restoration of family, material, or even health. He simply wanted to hear from God--to know that God was still there for him. Perhaps Job already realized that it was not the big family, the possessions, or even physical vitality that made life meaningful. It was communion with his Creator. Instead of trying to recapture what we once had let us simply seek the Creator, and his kingdom.

Traveler does bring a unique and important perspective. Seeing the immigrants as refugees from corruption also helps me understand that "the illegals" will never understand American rage that "illegals are cutting in line--in front of those who respect our laws and apply legally." If they come from a culture in which the system is absolutely broken, they would have no idea what it means to hope that going the legal route would work, and would not itself be corrupt (payoffs to immigration officials). This is not to excuse the issue, but to help us understand it. It's hard for me to get angry at a group of people who partake in a process (illegal immigration) that has been tolerated, almost with abandon, for so long. Like so many, I would like to see the U.S. get control of its borders, so we can let in who we want. At that point, I would be one in favor of very generous policies. However, as Traveler said, this seems to be a fantasy. And if controlling our borders truly is a fantasy, then this whole debate is a cynical diversion meant to prepare us for a meaningless 2006 & 2008 congressional and presidential campaign seasons.

Rev 20:6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years. KJV 1 Cor 6:3: 3 Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life? KJV Genesis speaks of 6 days. One possible understanding is that the days are periods of time. I wasn't aware that the LDS took that as an official interpretation. Regardless, I doubt anyone will be complaining about our new residence.

It's a big question mark, but here are some thoughts: 1. We'll have glorified bodies, probably like Jesus has post-resurrection. 2. We'll rule and reign with Christ. How? Fun speculation here. 3. We'll judge angels. 4. The place Christ is preparing has been in the making for 2000 years. It only took six days to make earth--which was much more wonderful than it is now. 5. We'll experience most natural processes directly, rather than via nature. For example, we'll not need the sun or moon, because the light of God will directly illumine heaven. 6. This one's a bit speculative, but I would guess that every breath we breathe will be like the first "breath of life" God breathed into Adam & Eve. 7. Imagine being able to relate to God and each other without second-guessing, interpreting, worrying about motives, etc.! 8. We'll work, and our work will be richly meaningful. I'll spare everyone the bandwith reading of posting a lesson I did on this topic. B)

"Hi Dr. T." (said in flat, sing-song) I guess we'd better stay away from "The Rule of the Jungle": Do unto to others BEFORE they do unto you!

Just some thoughts from one who first engaged in polical activism due to moral concerns. 1. Courts have determined that churches cannot publish "voting guides" that specifically endorse particular candidates. The Moral Majority did so for a time, but bowed to the directives of the courts. Likewise the Christian Coalition. 2. The Christian Right did try to recruit LDS during the early 1980s, and I would be surprised if such efforts were not on-going. 3. There are certainly sincere believers in both American parties, and in most of the parties of Europe and Canada, etc. 4. There are connivers, willing to use religion for their own purposes in all major parties. 5. I agree that churches should avoid too directly jumping into the political fray. On the other hand, there are times when issues of import arise, and churches can "speak the truth to power." Slavery and Civil Rights in America were two obvious ones. Many believe that abortion is also. 6. It enrages me to hear folk say that churches have NOTHING to say in the public square, or that religious leaders should never address political leaders. 7. I will never endorse a political party that makes religion itself a platform item (i.e. an American Christian party).

Having come to know your online persona, I appreciate the spiritual confidence that sense of urgency you have about souls. We've not reached the same conclusions, but we both approach faith as something that is primary in life, and we both wish to aggressively share the truth and joy we've found. So, I'm not offended, nor am I feeling bad. I like your avatar--always smiling. You've probably noted that my religious identification is clearly labeled. Me thinks Ray's "rock rolling" reference is more to the point that he sees me as a God-seeker with an open heart (well...I hope he does...I believe I am), and so, will eventually embrace what he believes is true. I'll restate what I said back in October, when I joined: I'm hear to learn and share, and am grateful for the ample opportunity I have had to do both.

We need to start by looking at presuppositions. Non-LDS Christians start with the assumption that the early church creedal developments were directed by God, by "some called to be teachers." Thus, we agree with the following beliefs: 1. Our existence began at birth. We did not exist as premortal spirits. 2. Jesus was not created by the Father. He is co-eternal with the Father, both backwards and forwards. 3. There is only one God, period. There has only been one God. There will always only be one God. So, what does it mean that we will jointly inherit with Jesus? That we will be glorified together with Him? We believe that we shall indeed become more than we are. We shall see as Jesus sees. We will become eternal beings. We will rule and reign with him. We will judge angels. We will not become part of God. We don't even like the term gods. By some of the six definitions that have been offered, the term might work--but we'd avoid it for the same reason Traveler spells our Master G-d. There is an understanding that we shall indeed "reign with Christ." What this means, we can only speculate. Perhaps we will, like Joseph, be placed in authority, as ambassadors of Christ, over groups of people (planets?). However, as wise ambassadors, we'll know our limits, and always defer to the Sovereign. AK, you've earned the benefit of the doubt with me. :)

You've earned the benefit of the doubt, Traveler. Your heart's cry is for the purity of the gospel, and your justified concern is that money (filthy lucre) can so easily corrupt it. I disagree that having full-time clergy necessarily leads to corruption, but I can see the connection. Here are some other concerns: 1. Religious advertising in which the smiling believers are all clearly middle/upper class. Is the message that poor folk do not make good Christians? (Trust me, factions within Pentecostalism deserve SEVERE scrutiny along this line). 2. The opposite extremes of, on the one hand, coddling Christians into believing that since money is taboo, they need not worry whatsoever about how much they give to God. Just give "as the Spirit leads." Somehow it ends up averaging at about 2%. On the other hand, so adamantly demanding that anything less than 10% of the gross = robbing God, and if you don't give to the special appeals your love for God is lacking, you don't care about lost souls, etc. to the point that people believe it's all about money, not about giving time, a listening ear, a friendly smile, visiting the prisoner, the sick, etc. I could go on, but this issue of money and material corrupting the gospel message is huge. IMHO saying that clergy, teachers, etc. should not be paid because of possible corruption is a way of building a fence around the danger. It may prevent some trouble, but it may also prevent some good work from getting done. The issue goes to the heart, and it is a matter that cannot be simply solved. On going reflection, meditation, communion with God are essential to prevent such failures. There are no objective means of testing a divine call. On the other hand, beyond the objective standards of church training, experience, and presentation, those who serve on "pulpit committees" do pray for God's direction. It's not only a question of whether the candidate has a divine call to ministry, but whether this particular location is God's specific calling for this time. And, it's more common than not that when there is a vote on the matter and the candidate "wins" by a small margin, s/he will refuse the post due to the lack of spiritual consensus and confirmation. Now, pull the money out of the equation. Service is still an honor, and the same issues would still arise. How to determine if the person is called? Is s/he called to this particular service at this time? The issues are the same. You don't get paid for being called, you get paid for the service you provide. As a rough explanation of how salaries get decided in most cases: What is the training? If Bible college, then the pay of a public school teacher would probably be similar (nobody confuses ministry with high-end professional pay). If the M.Div is required, perhaps the pay would be similar to a low to mid-grade lawyer. Also, the community being served factors in. If the community is poor, and the church is a "mission." regardless of training, the pastor may have to work. My seminary colleague took a church in Lakawana, NY. He got 12 of 13 votes. His starting salary: $0. After a year, the raised it to $600 per month. Generally speaking, ministers' incomes would fall in the 40-60 percentile of the congregation. They make too much, and of course people feel the chuch is being taken advantage of. They make too little and the leader ends up looking like a welfare project of the church. There is no doubt that the pursuit of money can bring all kinds of evil. I'm not convinced that supporting clergy for fulltime service leads to this sin. It might be argued that paying too little or too much could offer temptations. But support itself need not be an issue. I understand Traveler's concerns, and agree at least that all Christians need to meditate seriously on how money effects their walk with God--whether leader, or member, teacher, or janitor. On the other hand, salaried, trained, ordained clergy who are supported in a generous yet frugal manner by churches are no more likely to be corrupted by materialism than volunteer bishops, who, in addition to the normal pressures of modern life with large families, add the equivalent of an additional part-time professional position, with no added material support.

I appreciate this comment. Money is a tool. Used well, it can be most helpful. However, if the tool becomes the goal, corruption and destruction result. We need not 'throw out the baby with the bathwater,' but caution is necessary. True. I'm a full-tither, so I pay it (or, to be theologically and spiritually correct, I pay the Lord via his agent). Close. I'm actually with the feds, so probably 90% of the 70% of ldstalk members who are LDS probably have a part in my salary.

At first glance the notion that we could become gods, might some day be worshipped, my actually share a place in the godhead, etc. certainly does attract serious biblical scrutiny. Such claims might ultimately be determined to be blasphemous. On the other hand, there are some who have tread similar ground, particularly in the Word of Faith/Prosperity gospel camp. We are children of the king, joint heirs with Christ, we will see like him for we shall be as he is, etc. LDS are not the first, and will not be the last to traverse the theological landscape of humans becoming 'little gods.' Indeed, the Jehovah's Witnesses believe that Jesus was created, and is a little god. I suppose this teaching takes that one step further, saying, in essence, "us too."